TE-3048 |
Date | Description |
---|---|
IRG #57 2021-09-16 (Thu) 8:38 am +0800 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | Not unified to 𦻬 U+26EEC, Evidence accepted, glyph no change. |
Version | Description |
---|---|
2.0 | For 03445, add Discussion Record "Not unified to 𦻬 U+26EEC, evidence accepted, glyph not changed." |
5.0 | For 03445, change IDS to ⿱艹旗 |
5.0 | For 03445, add Discussion Record "Evidence accepted, IDS=⿱艹旗, 2023-04." |
Source Reference | Glyph |
---|---|
TE-3048 | 1.0 |
group | TCA |
a) Source reference | TE-3048 |
b) PUA Code of TTF | E292 |
c) KangXi Radical Code | 140.0 |
e) Stroke Count | 14 |
f) First Stroke | 4 |
g) Total stroke count | 18 |
i) IDS | ⿱卝旗 |
j) Similar/ Variants | U+26EEC |
k) Ref. to Evidence doc | IRGN2486_TCA_WS2021_evi_02 |
k1) Page No. | Page13, no.662 |
l) Optional info | qí |
Review Comments
▲ 李昉等:《文苑英華》,文淵閣四庫全書本,卷七百七十四
寶善堂彙藳
Other than the minor difference in shape of radical 140, how is this different from U+26EEC? Is the given radical correct?
unify to 𦻬 (U+26EEC) possibly?
Agree with Lee's comment at #2014.
The origin of this character is a name character, and we cannot change it at will. If we change it to [艹], the character will not be used on the ID card, so we are creating a character that no one uses, and we are losing the intent of the character we submitted.
Please see IRGN2546 for more information on the normalization of the TCA glyph.
▲ 广东省兴宁县政协文史资料研究委员会: 《兴宁文史 第21辑 罗斧月专辑》, 1996.11, p. 112